USPTO denies Apple's trademark application for iPad mini

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 56
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    So
    kdarling wrote: »
    Nothing that dramatic in this case.  

    It was simply a lazily done trademark application, that most likely will be fixed up and approved.

    In fairness, while looking up the records, I saw that the application for "iPod nano" had gone through fairly easily (except for several minor oppositions from companies with trademarks like Nano Media, Nano this or that, none of whom fought hard enough to stop it), so maybe the Apple lawyers doing the "iPad mini" filing thought that its application would go through just as easily.
    So now you are a lawyer and know for a fact that Apple was lazy with their filing.
    Do you people ever stop with your BS?
  • Reply 42 of 56
    timbittimbit Posts: 331member
    It's because "mini" is the describing word. If it was part of the name (such as Mini Cooper) then you could patent it. If we allowed it, then you could patent colours and sizes too. Then it gets stupid.
    iPad green
    iPad huge
    iPad 2.0
    iPad 5x
    Etc....

    Apple doesn't patent their iOS numbers either. It's a descriptor. "iOS" is patentable. The 4, 5, 6, 6.1, etc are not.
  • Reply 43 of 56
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hfts View Post



    So now you are a lawyer and know for a fact that Apple was lazy with their filing.


     


    I've studied Apple's trademark submissions for years, and discussed them online with IP lawyers.


     


    I think it could easily have been submitted correctly and approved the first time around.  It's not like it's the first trademark submission Apple's ever done.   


     


    At the same time, as I said, it's no big deal and it'll likely be approved later on.


     


    Quote:


    Do you people ever stop with your BS?



     


    Do you ever contribute anything besides bile?   And yet you wonder why your posts are often removed.


     


    If you think it was a good submission, then you should be able to explain why and give evidence to back up your theory.  That's how adult discussion works in real life.  Childish insults can never replace actual research and knowledge.

  • Reply 44 of 56
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by broadbean View Post



    I think Samsung has Nano in the name of a fridge.



    Anyway, too early for April Fool's.


     


    It was on a washing machine Ag+ nano wash or something like that.

  • Reply 45 of 56
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Timbit View Post



    It's because "mini" is the describing word. If it was part of the name (such as Mini Cooper) then you could patent it. If we allowed it, then you could patent colours and sizes too. Then it gets stupid.


    iPad green

     


     


    That would be the "iPad minti".

  • Reply 46 of 56
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Timbit View Post

    It's because "mini" is the describing word. If it was part of the name (such as Mini Cooper) then you could patent it. If we allowed it, then you could patent colours and sizes too. Then it gets stupid.

    iPad green

    iPad huge

    iPad 2.0

    iPad 5x

    Etc....


     


    Funny how "iPod nano" is trademarked. There goes that. Though if your argument really was about patents…


     



    Apple doesn't patent their iOS numbers either. It's a descriptor. "iOS" is patentable. The 4, 5, 6, 6.1, etc are not.


     


    Right! Because that's not even the same argument by any stretch of the law or imagination (which quite often are the same entity…).

  • Reply 47 of 56
    petrosypetrosy Posts: 51member


    File under.... 1st world problems...with a cross reference to nobody really gives a sht!

  • Reply 48 of 56
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by petrosy View Post

    File under.... 1st world problems...with a cross reference to nobody really gives a sht!


     


    You could have just told us you've never made something worth trademarking. image

  • Reply 49 of 56
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,380member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheBum View Post


    Just like "Windows" is a descriptive term for the type of user interface, a term in use long before Windows 1.0 came out.  If they're going to establish the "descriptive term" standard, MS should have their Windows trademark invalidated.



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    Not true. By the time Microsoft got the Windows trademark, 'windows' was widely used to describe those rectangles on your computer screen with information inside. In fact, the use and terminology of 'windows' predates Microsoft's use of "Windows" to describe their product.


     


    Agreed.  I wrote to the IBM OS/2 team during the Windows rollout (and great stabbing in the back of their patrons in Armonk) and suggested IBM change the name of OS/2 to "Doors." 


     


    As in you can open and walk through doors, but even if you manage to open a window, you have to awkwardly climb in.... 


     


    ...oh well, it was a thought....  image


     


    ...and not that their listening to me would have accomplished a great deal, LoLz....  ...but I did get a nice letter back from the then new IBM CEO's office thanking me, and later some videotapes I think were generally only sent to major clients and developers, one Apple-related (about the "AIM Alliance," i.e., the Apple-IBM-Motorola "Pink" initiative, some residual bits of which, I believe found its way into OS X).

  • Reply 50 of 56

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    There's no Apple trademark on Mac Mini either AFAIK, tho I think Apple claims it's trademarked.


    *though, come on Sally, you can do better than that. Theres no trade mark for "fornicator of truth" but you have taken the label of this.  

  • Reply 51 of 56
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    I think it could easily have been submitted correctly and approved the first time around.  It's not like it's the first trademark submission Apple's ever done.   



     


    LOL


     


    Apple: A company easily out-thought by a regular poster against them on 'AppleInsider'.


     


    In the future, would it be possible to just attach your arrogance in a separate file, rather than include it in your original post?


     


    If pseudo legal gobbledygook were toxic, we’d all be dead having gazed upon this post.

  • Reply 52 of 56
    hungoverhungover Posts: 603member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post



    iPod mini, Mac mini, Cooper mini, Arduino mini, TiVo mini etc.... just too common


     


    You mean Mini Cooper? Your way around would suggest that there was a larger version of the Cooper.


     


    Given that there is no trademark for Mac mini or ipod mini I do wonder why apple decided to throw money at this application. I assume that the others had also been rejected on the same grounds.

  • Reply 53 of 56
    irelandireland Posts: 17,671member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    Meh. This just opens the door for everyone else to call their tablet "iPad mini".


     


    They've a TM on iPad. It'd be like trying to call your car a Porsche 1000.

  • Reply 54 of 56
    irelandireland Posts: 17,671member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    Okay, I have to step in here because so many people are quoting this nonsense.  


     


    It's "Mini Cooper" not "Cooper mini" and yes, it is a trademark.  


     


    The mini does stand for "small" in the same way as the iPad mini, but perhaps putting it backwards makes the difference?  In any case, the ruling makes no difference to Apple's branding except that Samsung will probably come out with a "mini" something just to be dicks about it (they specialise in that sort of 'mucho-macho' behaviour).  My feeling is that this whole article/situation is weird, but pretty much the exact definition of "much ado about nothing." 



     


    Did you just try to argue that the mini in Mini Cooper (Austin Mini Cooper or Morris Mini Cooper) doesn't mean small?

  • Reply 55 of 56
    chrispoechrispoe Posts: 79member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    Okay, I have to step in here because so many people are quoting this nonsense.  


     


    It's "Mini Cooper" not "Cooper mini" and yes, it is a trademark.  


     


    The mini does stand for "small" in the same way as the iPad mini, but perhaps putting it backwards makes the difference?  In any case, the ruling makes no difference to Apple's branding except that Samsung will probably come out with a "mini" something just to be dicks about it (they specialise in that sort of 'mucho-macho' behaviour).  My feeling is that this whole article/situation is weird, but pretty much the exact definition of "much ado about nothing." 



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


     


    Did you just try to argue that the mini in Mini Cooper (Austin Mini Cooper or Morris Mini Cooper) doesn't mean small?



    It sounds to me like he is saying mini does mean small. but MINI is also a brand and Cooper is just one of the models offered by MINI.


    When you say Austin Mini Cooper, Morris Mini Cooper. or now the BMW MINI Cooper it's pretty much on par as saying GM Chevy Impala or a Ford Lincoln MKZ.

  • Reply 56 of 56
    gtr wrote: »
    LOL

    Apple: A company easily out-thought by a regular poster against them on 'AppleInsider'.

    In the future, would it be possible to just attach your arrogance in a separate file, rather than include it in your original post?

    If pseudo legal gobbledygook were toxic, we’d all be dead having gazed upon this post.

    KDarling is correct. As a lawyer, though not one expert in IP, I like any person with such training and experience recognize the difference between arrogance and well-reasoned arguments. KDarling's are well-reasoned, not arrogant. Whether the legal precedent and the specifics of this fact situation support his argument is beside the point; his argument would form a good legal theory of the case that further legal research in preparation of a legal brief will either confirm or deny.

    Your comments are those of pure arrogance, without the benefit of knowledge or reasoning.
Sign In or Register to comment.